Medical Forum / General / General / April 2005
Scarlet Fever?+Amoxicillin=Hives?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
rehsurq@yahoo.com - 03 Apr 2005 06:30 GMT My 6-year old doctor had a sore throat last Sunday (3/27). Monday and Tuesday she woke up with a mild fever and sore throat, which seemed to disappear with a dose of IB. Late Tuesday and Wedesday her fever shot up over 102, so we took her to the doctor Wednesday. He said she had an ear infection and prescribed Amoxicillin. We gave her one dose Wednesday night, 3 doses Thursday, and one dose Friday morning before school. After school she said she was very itchy and did appear to have hives only on her back, so we gave her some Benadryl and took her to the doctor (we could only get in to see a different doctor than before). This doctor said it was probably scarlet fever, did a swab test, and it turned up *negative.* Doc thought it might still be strep but the amox was leading to the negative result, and urged us to continue the amox. Doc said her tongue and skin made her believe it was scarlet fever, and said her ear and throat were both still red. Saturday we resumed the amoxicillin, and her hives returned again, this time on her back, stomach, legs, and arms. We gave her Benadryl and it worked well again.
I don't know much at all about scarlet fever, but I do know hives when I see them (my son has a nut allergy - I've seen hives). I didn't think scarlet fever is supposed to have *hives* but a more of a rash. Now I'm wondering if maybe it is the amoxicillin itself. My daughter hasn't had it in several years, though before there were no problems. I realize that people can become sensitive to it even if they weren't before.
Now to my questions... Would it be a bad idea to hold off the amox on Sunday until I can get her back into see her regular doctor (the one who saw her in the first place) on Monday? If I hold off the amox on Sunday and the hives return anyway, would that mean it probably is scarlet fever? Any other thoughts?
Thank you very much in advance! J
Carey Gregory - 03 Apr 2005 07:04 GMT >My 6-year old doctor had a sore throat last Sunday (3/27). I recommend a more experienced doctor.
Just kidding. I know it's a typo. ;-)
>I don't know much at all about scarlet fever, but I do know hives when >I see them (my son has a nut allergy - I've seen hives). I didn't think >scarlet fever is supposed to have *hives* but a more of a rash. Now I'm >wondering if maybe it is the amoxicillin itself. My daughter hasn't had >it in several years, though before there were no problems. I realize >that people can become sensitive to it even if they weren't before. Hives are definitely a sign of allergic reaction and not scarlet fever. From what you've described, I would put the amoxicillin high on the list of suspects.
>Now to my questions... >Would it be a bad idea to hold off the amox on Sunday until I can get >her back into see her regular doctor (the one who saw her in the first >place) on Monday? If I hold off the amox on Sunday and the hives return >anyway, would that mean it probably is scarlet fever? Any other >thoughts? I doubt that holding off on the amoxicillin for another 12-24 hours will matter much. I would do so until you can get in to see the doc.
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 03 Apr 2005 23:04 GMT >>doubt that holding off on the amoxicillin for another 12-24 hours will matter much. I would do so until you can get in to see the doc. <<
Agree. There's a bitter debate between the US and Europe whether antibiotics even influence the clinical course of strep throat, enough to give. Our studies say yes, theirs say no. Jury is out. But meanwhile a day won't make much difference.
By "hives" (aka urticaria) I presume you mean mosquito-bite looking bumpy things with whitish interiors and red rings. Dime to quarter size or larger. Not just a flat rash. If she has hives, I would certainly stop the antibiotic! Get a second opinion.
If it's a flat rash like measles, she might have mononucleosis. This gives a rash 10% of the time, but it goes up to 80% if you give amoxicillin. It's not really an allergy, though, and it shouldn't look like hives.
SBH
PF Riley - 04 Apr 2005 08:31 GMT >My 6-year old [daughter] had a sore throat last Sunday (3/27). Monday >and Tuesday she woke up with a mild fever and sore throat, which [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >it in several years, though before there were no problems. I realize >that people can become sensitive to it even if they weren't before. A scarlatiniform rash is a fine, dry, bumpy, red rash with a "sandpaper" texture with a characteristic distribution. It does not come and go, it is usually not itchy, and does not respond to Benadryl. Hives, however, are variably sized and shaped rashed, red areas as descrbied by Dr. Harris that do come and go, usually itch, and can completely disappear temporarily with Benadryl.
>Now to my questions... >Would it be a bad idea to hold off the amox on Sunday until I can get >her back into see her regular doctor (the one who saw her in the first >place) on Monday? If I hold off the amox on Sunday and the hives return >anyway, would that mean it probably is scarlet fever? Any other >thoughts? Here's my guess as to what most likely happened (assuming she had no other symptoms prior to or concurrent with the sore throat and fever):
Child gets a virus infection, develops the prodrome of sore throat, and subsequent fever. Child is seen and the eardrum is "red" and thus is diagnosed with an ear infection, even though the child did not have the typical antecedent cold symptoms nor an ear ache. The child is then treated with an antibiotic for a viral illness.
Then, as is common in children, the virus causes hives. (I would disagree with Mr. Gregory that hives "are definitely a sign of allergic reaction".) Some diagnostic confusion ensues, and the antibiotic is continued. The hives wax and wane as they are wont to do.
Or, perhaps it truly is an amoxicillin allergy. We'll likely never know.
Side note: Some happy news is that because these days a lot fewer kids are treated with an antibiotic at the beginning of a viral illness than were just a few decades ago, we are growing a new generation of Americans who are not afflicted with epidemic "penicillin allergy", since it seems that all the viral rashes in children of the 1960's and 1970's occurred while they were taking antibiotics, and they were thus branded so. It's no wonder why, consistently in several studies, only about 4% of adults who think they are "allergic" to penicillin actually are.
What would I do with this child if she presented to my office? As Dr. Harris pointed out, antibiotics don't really do much to modify the course of streptococcal pharyngitis, which is largely a self-limited illness (a fact few parents know). However, the main reason for treating strep throat with antibiotics is to prevent rheumatic fever, which was the most common cause of acquired heart disease in children and young adults prior to the antibiotic era. (Would anyone like to guess what has become the number one cause now?) If the only history I had was fever and sore throat, but a strep swab was obtained only after starting antibiotics, there is a small but real risk of rheumatic fever from discontinuing antibiotics. One is thus obligated to complete a treatment for strep throat. With the presence of hives, however, which could be from the amoxicillin, the risk of continuing amoxicillin is producing anaphylaxis. I would thus switch her to either azithromycin or cephalexin. She would then get better, the hives would go away, we would label her chart "allergic to amoxicillin" and we'd never really know if she really is allergic to amoxicillin or if she had strep throat or not. But at least she'd be all better.
As for stopping the antibiotics until she can be seen again: Treatment of strep throat should commence within 10 days of onset to effectively prevent rheumatic fever. There is usually plenty of time. As I often say, there are very few good reasons to take an antiobiotic, but many good reasons not to.
PF
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 05 Apr 2005 23:36 GMT Yes, it is unfortunately that just about anything can trigger hives-- strep, other bacteria, viral infections, allergies, looking cross-eyed at a hive-prone person.
With a rash, it's probably not a drug allergy. With hives you don't know what it is-- it could be a drug allergy especially with pen or sulfa, and are obligated to stop the antibiotic. Now the question is whether to replace it with another.
It's always a bad situation if you do a strep test after you start the antibiotic. If you're going to ignore the result if negative, why do it at all? You should save the money for the strep test if you're going to treat no matter what it says.
I suppose the lesson is that, if the major reason by most antibiotics are to be given to children with sore throats is to prevent rheumatic heart disease, then everybody should be strep-tested from the word go. And since adults don't get rheumatic fever from sore throats, we can pretty much quit given them antibiotics for sore throats also (unless we see giant pus-filled tonsils or something very impressive. Maybe).
And we've got to stop all this giving of amoxicillin for earaches and undiagnosed sore throats. Even if it is cheap; it's NOT a good placebo. Because it just causes more trouble than it's worth, and this case neatly illustrates why.
SBH
PF Riley - 06 Apr 2005 10:54 GMT >I suppose the lesson is that, if the major reason by most antibiotics >are to be given to children with sore throats is to prevent rheumatic >heart disease, then everybody should be strep-tested from the word go. Well, not necessarily, because the strep test cannot distinguish between a patient actually suffering from strep pharyngitis, which carries the small risk of causing rheumatic fever, and a strep carrier, which generally does not. The vast majority will be false positives if everyone is tested, which is why the pre-test probability must be high before the test is run. There are various clinical scoring systems in the pediatric and family practice literature for determining if the probability is high, but it basically boils down to: Fever, headache, sore throat, and absence of cough. (Except young children often have vomiting and do not complain of sore throat -- they simply stop eating, which symptoms, altogether, are quite nonspecific nonspecific.)
No guesses on the most common cause of acquired heart disease in children in the present era?
PF
Carey Gregory - 06 Apr 2005 19:27 GMT >No guesses on the most common cause of acquired heart disease in >children in the present era? Kawasaki Disease
(I cheated)
PF Riley - 07 Apr 2005 04:09 GMT >>No guesses on the most common cause of acquired heart disease in >>children in the present era? > >Kawasaki Disease > >(I cheated) Correct, but no bonus points for you!!
PF
Selene Cordi - 05 Apr 2005 08:18 GMT I definitely defer to the more knowledgeable answering your question. However, I am under the impression that Scarlet Fever is essentially extreme strep pharyngitis (strep throat). Rash is common with Strep, or especially Scarlet Fever. Now, I agree, hives (as described before) would be indicative of an allergic reaction, likely to the amoxicillin. But if the rash is not hives, then I would cautiously assume that the rash is a result of the scarlet fever. However, keep an eye out for breathing difficulties, etc. that would indicate an allergic reaction.
I hope she feels better soon. I just got over strep throat, and it's not a pleasant experience. In fact the first doctor I saw (I live in Juneau, Alaska) decided I had a stomach virus, despite the fact that I had EVERY classic damn symptom of strep. Didn't do a culture, nothing. By the next morning I was so bad off, I wound up getting IV fluids, steroids, and anti- inflammatories. ARGH.
Jeff - 05 Apr 2005 12:41 GMT >I definitely defer to the more knowledgeable answering your question. > However, I am under the impression that Scarlet Fever is essentially > extreme strep pharyngitis (strep throat). Rash is common with Strep, or > especially Scarlet Fever. Scarlet Fever is just strep throat with a rash. For some reason, scarlet fever is not nearly as fatal now as it was one hundred years ago or so.
> Now, I agree, hives (as described before) would > be indicative of an allergic reaction, likely to the amoxicillin. But if > the rash is not hives, then I would cautiously assume that the rash is a > result of the scarlet fever. What was discussed is that the illness the child had was likely a viral illness that caused the rash. The amoxicillin was prescribed because one can't rule out strep, so you need to treat anyway, to prevent rheumatic fever.
So now, there is no way to tell for sure if the rash was from amoxicillin or from a virus. And no way to know if she had strep throat and scarlet fever or not.
> However, keep an eye out for breathing > difficulties, etc. that would indicate an allergic reaction. Breathing difficulties can be from many different things, like asthma. An allergic reaction can cause breathing difficulties, so it is important to watch for them so that any breathing difficulties can handled because they can be quite serious.
> I hope she feels better soon. I just got over strep throat, and it's not > a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > anti- > inflammatories. ARGH. Gee, that doesn't sound fun.
I am glad you are feeling better.
Jeff
|
|
|